Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday June 04, 2009 @04:27PM
from the soon-it'll-be-saline-&-stem-cell-solution dept.

Sean0michael writes "Australian scientists have restored the sight of three human test subjects using stem cells cultured in contact lenses. All the patients were blind in only one eye. Two were legally blind, but can now read the big letters on an eye chart. The third could read the first few lines, but is now able to pass a driver's test. The University of New South Wales reports that these patients all had damaged corneas, and the stem cells came from each person's good eye. The best part: the procedure is inexpensive, raising hopes for being able to push this to the third world sooner than other, more expensive medications."

In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.

That's due to your own ignorance not any actual facts. I found one example just in 2 seconds of googling. This FDA approved study [cnn.com] was based on a previous trial that was able to successfully restore locomotion to those with spinal cord injuries. It is not even the only example just the first one that I found.

I already told you what the breakthrough was. They were able to successfully restore locomotion using embryonic stem cells in people with spinal cord injuries.

I also did a google search and didn't find much that was successful, though there are hundreds of breakthroughs using adult stem cells.

Which are all using as a base the work of those working on embryonic stem cells. Anyone who thinks that none of these breakthroughs were based off of any work done with embryonic stem cells is just plain ignorant.

I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.

And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.

I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.

Did you read what I posted? This study was being done based off the work of a previous trial. Here [jneurosci.org] is the trial that was done that precedes the FDA-approved study.

Look, I'm as much for using animal right activists in initial trials as you are. But for some reason none of them has stepped forward to take over the role as guinea pig. So rats are still the best we can do for initial trials.

Which is pretty typical of initial trials. I never said this was a full-blown, ready to use treatment.

OK, but that's not what I'd call a breakthrough, which is what the GP was asking for.

We've been able to hook up devices to roaches heads and use joysticks to move them around, but that's not exactly what I'd call mind control either.

When a Christopher Reeves type patient gets up and walks from an embryonic stem cell treatment, that can not be done from adult derived stem cells and doesn't contract cancer within five years, get back with us.

And if you actually READ that study, the study was done on RATS, not on humans.

I did read the study and did know that. How does that make it any less of a breakthrough? Was the initial polio vaccine not a breakthrough just because it was only initially only worked on monkeys? I never once claimed this was some ready for human therapy but that doesn't make it any less of a breakthrough. In fact, it's because of that trial that the study I linked was approved and the ones running it admit to building upon the work of that previous trial.

No wonder you've never heard of Humanae Vitae- you're as illiterate as any science-worshipper I've ever come across.

Don't reply to that guy, he is a cult fanatic. They dno't see reason. I went to his web site, it's full of logical fallacys and what I will kindly call ignorant misunderstandings.that person thinks RERUM NOVARUM is a good economic model for crying out loud.Well he claims to, I suspect you you moved into his house or started living on his property he would decide otherwise.

You want to drive people away from atheism and lend credence to GP's "science worshiper" comment? This is how to do it.

I'm not a fan of religion myself... but posts like this show a level of fanaticism that far outweighs the what average religious folks are willing to do in terms of "forcing... belief down the throats of others".

This aside from the fact that you read an awful lot into his post. (Then again, reading his web site... I can kinda understand it;)

I'd give up now, unfortunately the whole embryonic stem cell debate brings out the religious right who ignore studies. They seem use strawman arguments to try to push their own agenda.

The rest of us who do actually read studies and support embryonic stem cells know what you're getting at.

I bet these religious nuts don't even realise how much embryonic material (not just stem cells) are used in science. In fact, one of my friends when working in a neuroscience institution was quite frank with the fact she used aborted human embryos in her research. They keep it low key to stop the religious nuts from protesting or doing something destructive to the labs.

It seems the most ill informed people in the world would prefer to see adults die rather than an aborted embryo be used for research.

If you informed yourself, you would understand the objection. You see, some people have a problem saying who is human and who is not. I mean, if it has human DNA, brain waves, heart beat, can feel pain and so on, it's human, right? Well, some people say it's human, or at least don't have the gaul to declare who is human and who is "sub-human", and they're not really "crazy" or "ill informed" in that belief. If I gave you an "aborted embryo" at eight months gestation and a one month prematurely born baby

"This is significant because it's the first clinical trial of a human embryonic-based product."

From that single line in the fucking article YOU posted you can find out that not only is this the FIRST approved research using Embryonic Stem Cells but in addition it is just research and NOT a breakthrough. Way too many people are way the fuck too stuck in their ideology to see the actual reality of the world around them.

I didn't say that study was the breakthrough. The breakthrough was the previous trial on which that study is basing it's work on. Please learn to read. The previous trial can be found here [jneurosci.org].

I'm pretty sure the fact that that trial was able to restore locomotion after a spinal cord injury would be a breakthrough.

A breakthrough for paraplegic rats.

Using embryonic stem cells that have ALWAYS been approved for research and federal funding.

I know you want to make this look like Barry got into office and suddenly the lame started walking and the blind can see, but Barry had nothing to do with either the vision repair using adult stem cells or the approval of the TESTS to see if embryonic cells c

In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.

Plenty of research is going on in embryonic stem cells, right now. Induced pluripotent stem cells were made using lessons learned from embryonic stem cells. That's a huge one right there. And the discovery of ESC itself was a significant advance.

You might not think of biology as being important beyond what diseases it can cure right now./.ers tend to be annoyed by people who take this approach to computing. Hmm...

Kind of completely ignored my post, didn't you? Again, not everything in biology is for immediate use. Biology is a science. Cell biology as a scientific inquiry into the workings of the cell, ESC have already proven themselves as valuable research models. Again I'm pointing to IPSC as one of the biggest successes with ESC research.

It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses.

Kind of completely ignored my post, didn't you? Again, not everything in biology is for immediate use. Biology is a science. Cell biology as a scientific inquiry into the workings of the cell, ESC have already proven themselves as valuable research models. Again I'm pointing to IPSC as one of the biggest successes with ESC research.

It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses.

You are correct, research is a long process. However, at some point, you have to put aside you political ideology and accept that there may be better ways. The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them. So, why o

The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them.

On the cures thing, I'm going to repeat myself (this makes three by the way.)

"It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses."

I was talking about research. Research is ongoing, that should be an indication that we don't know enough. 10 years is not enough time to learn all we can about how cells turn from "lump of clay" cells into their final form, and for that we need embryonic stem cells.

Yes, I see... other countries exist on the planet, so if a country like say the United States were to divert its resources away from embryonic to adult stem cell research, it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the pace of development in either.:P

"some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more,"yeah, well I am tired of 'some people' telling me nonsense becasue of there 'beliefs'. Ignoring the fact that they are the scraps of In Vitro and not specifically harvest for research.

"...used and duplicated forever."

No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.

No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.

Citation please. I've heard that some of the "approved" stem cell lines can not be used in actual human trials, but so what? You use government funding and government approved stem cell lines. You get a breakthrough. Use that breakthrough to get private funding and dump all government funding and imposed limitations. Profit!

You're one of those who claims funding is cut if the amount of funding doesn't get increased as much as you want, aren't you?

Bush did fund research directly on a limited number of cell lines which he specified. But the actual funding to embryonic stem cell research itself isn't the issue.

What Bush did which was new, was to threaten to withdraw all federal funding for a research institution if anyone there touches something that touched something that was in a lab where something might have touched an unsanctioned embryonic stem cell. The funding is cut off for anything else they may be doing however unrelated... viruses, autism,

So you feel that we can ethically use what we obtained unethically. That's certainly a convenient position to take, but it's ethically bankrupt.

Actually, it was a compromise. Bush did a lot of that early on and every time he reached across the aisle, he drew back a nub. Just look at how YOU are treating him for offering something that the previous president didn't offer. So even though it was more than what you had before, it wasn't everything you wanted, so you bash him like a spoiled child who throws a tantrum when she gets a new car on her 16th birthday in the wrong color.

According to the people who actually use the sanctioned cell lines, they have already deteriorated to the point of uselessness

Just look at how YOU are treating him for offering something that the previous president didn't offer. So even though it was more than what you had before, it wasn't everything you wanted, so you bash him like a spoiled child who throws a tantrum when she gets a new car on her 16th birthday in the wrong color.

George W. Bush was the FIRST ever US President to fund ANY embryonic stem cell research EVER!

Lots of former presidents have funded embryonic stem cell research over the past century. Teddy Roosevelt funded embryonic stem cell research, and Thomas Jefferson wrote several treatises on the subject. "Woe be to the Republic that advocates ignorance of our most embryonic of cells, for therein lies madness."

They're not even 200 cells. Hell, more cell dies last time you sneezed.

If you only consisted of 200 cells, you'd really think twice about sneezing. See, it's not the fact that it only uses 200 cells; that's irrelevant. What matters is the percentage. When 200 cells means 100%, it has a lot more meaning. Besides, how many cells are required before a blob of human cells deserves human rights?

But, if you want to play by your rules, fine. How many cells do you have? If I have more, does that mean I can deem you non-human?

Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses. They come from in vitro fertilization. ESC are harvested 5 days after fertilization, abortions aren't performed 5 days after fertilization because you wouldn't know.

People had the image of evil scientists watching abortions being performed through a hole in the wall, rubbing their hands together and twirling their mustaches in sadistic anticipation of fresh, fetal stem cells. It worked out well. They had a target (that didn't exist) they could all agree to hate.

Now those people will have to imagine evil test tubes and deal with the fact that many of them have used such services.

It's only a matter of time before we hear them cry out that they were r

abort: the act of terminating a project or procedure before it is completed; (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=abort)So what if abortions aren't performed on babies in wombs at 5 days. It's still a human life, and you still aborted (see definition) it. You may think it's OK to do that, but call a spade a spade and stop trying to twist the terminology. You ought to be able to defend your position on its own merits.

That first one is the one the anti-stem cell movement is hoping people will think of, since that's the one they're queasy about. But ESC doesn't involve pregnancy or the termination thereof. It's not a miscarriage. This isn't removing an embryo from a woman to kill it. These are embyros that were never on their way to being born, it doesn't even fall into your definition.

The hypocrisy here is so thick I can't help but think you're trolling.

It's still a human life...

I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know what constitutes human life, but I do believe it's more than just having a set of nucleotide instructions on how to make a human, which is all 5 day old embryos have.

says who? it seems to me that it's a precursor to a human life, much like a sperm or an egg. surely the key component of a human is their conciousness. something that neither a sperm or an embryo possess.

if a person doesn't exist yet, then you can't hurt them, kill them, or infringe on their rights. They don't exist. An embryo is not a person, it is a sack of chemicals. Until those chemical attain conciousness, they are not a person. Do you consider using a condom as murdering a baby

Aborted fetuses aren't used as a source of stem cells since all the cells would be dead. The embryonic stem cells are harvested from leftover frozen embryos from people doing invitro-fertilization that would normally just be thrown out.

In other words, I'd rather that these extremely immature humans were given the chance to continue maturing toward adulthood, rather than being tossed aside OR killed for parts to help others.

My brother is an extremely immature human. What you are describing is an embryo. An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development that has no more in common with a human being then an ant. (And before you say it, the fact that the embryo cells may becomepart of a human being doesn't matter. I can eat the ant and it will become a part of a person too.)

Really? A human embryo can develop into an adult human, not just "become part" of one. Once you're able to take an ant and turn it into a human being, come back into the discussion. Until then, enjoy your diet of ants...

Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.

Yep, it's amusing that some people would rather have their dead bodies buried under ground or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science. Yet, for some strange reason, people are given the right to decide what happens to their bodies after they die. Who do these people think they are?

OR maybe we think that the embryos shouldn't have been created in the first place.

Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.

Only take what you need for the in vitro fertilization and no more.

But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.

Then you don't have an ethical dilemma about whether to kill them by throwing them in the garbage or kill them to experiment with ESCs.

There is nothing to kill. These are just clumps of undifferentiated cells.

ESC research could actually induce fertilization clinics to make MORE embryos than they need, knowing they'll be used for research as well.

And yet they don't need to since the fertilization clinics already had way more than they can use even before embryonic stem cell research started.

But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument.

I didn't put in words into anyone's mouth. I was just describing the ultimate reality of what happens when the frozen embryos aren't allowed to be used for research. They are incinerated or simply thrown away.

You could call it a strawman.

Outlining the consequences of what happens when the embryos aren't allowed to be used isn't a strawman.

Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.

You didn't tear anything down. You just basically repeated the wacko nonsense that comes from the religious right.

Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.

I have, hundreds of times. The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest "embryonic stem cell whiner" there is, and THEY predicted this development of reproductive research back in 1976 (Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI).

But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro ferti

I definitely agree that the Catholic Church's stand on this issue is far more self-consistant and respectable than that of other religious groups that oppose stem cell research. Which is true of their stand on most issues involving the intersection of science and religion.

I dont have a problem creating a human bieng for replcements. My ethical dilemma begins at brain activity but stemm cell harvesting falls far short of that.

Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me where my ethical dilemma's start, or to deny me the god given free will.(I use god as a reference here as its the only law your type will listen to, I will therefore face the consequences upon death.) You don't like it don't use any treatments you don't agree with.

Oops! God is the biggest fetus aborter around. I'm too lazy to google it up for you, but some large percentage of fertalized eggs fail to attach in the womb. That's a fairly unintelligent design if it's a sin to kill a couple of cells.

First, you would be more correct if you considered mis-carriages "Deity-Induced-Abortions".

Either way, you are so right! Why do we jail all these people for murder when their so called "victims" would have been killed by God, mother nature, or spaghetti monster eventually anyway!

FYI, the Catholic Church's position is that in vitro fertilization is immoral, and Catholics that agree with this make up a large percentage of the pro-life movement.

From a Catholic website [catholicinsight.com]: IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood,

But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument. You could call it a strawman. Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.

Yeah, you're right. It was kind of a strawman, largely because it was too specific.

"I have no idea of what I'm talking about, I can't be arsed to find out, and my imagination of what is going on outrages me!"

Fixed that for you. The anti-ESC crowd is running a very successful misinformation campaign. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. It's all the more astounding because so many scientists who work on this are professors, teachers, yet they have so far been totally unable to get across to most people that these are never from aborted fetuses, they never can be.

Even GP got it wrong

Aborted fetuses aren't used as a source of stem cells since all the cells would be dead.

Strange usag eof the word "occult." Since Christianity is one of those belief systems that typically includes no-abortion, and since you aren't referring to stem cells specifically here, I'd venture to say you're calling Christianity occult?

The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden"

And, of course, the word is typically used to describe a specific "occult" religion. Which Christianity is not... neither the Latin definition nor the religion.

Which is to be expected. Controlling the differentiation of a cell is still not completely understood and difficult to do. It is easier with partially differentiated cells, and hence with stem cells from the tissue that we wish to regrow. Therefore, the first practical treatments and applications of stem cell research will be using adult stem cells.

Where embryonic stem cells come into play is by helping understand this differentiation process better. Increasing our knowledge will enable us to develop treatments that aren't possible using adult stem cells, but it will also likely contribute to having safer more effective adult stem cell treatments treatments. It may even shed some light into the entire aging process and cell life-cycle. They are very important things to be studying.

To put it succinctly, adult stem cells are currently at the R&D stage, embryonic at the pure science stage. Both are important.

I'm getting really tired of all of these Stem Cell articles. SC are doing some rather nice things for medical science and when it comes down to it there shouldn't really be any controversy. Embryonic SC are the controversial ones and they haven't been used in any treatments to date (there is one scheduled for next year though). I think that we need to stop calling SC SC unless they are of the embryonic SC. This will clear out all of the controversy and will allow the funding to be freed up without any tr

The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells [wikipedia.org]), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.

IANAB, but that is not consistant with how I've heard the term used.From what I understand, and wikipedia agrees [wikipedia.org] is that the difference between progenitor and stem cells is whether they can divide indefinitely. The pecking order of how differentiated a cell is is like so:

The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.M

I don't know what most of those words mean, but judging from TFS where it says that the stem cells came from each subject's good eye, I'd say you're right, they aren't embryonic stem cells;-)

I had Lasik done when I was 20, back in the late 90s. Six good years of eyesight later, I started to develop an abnormality in my right now. Now, in my early thirties, I've been diagnosed with keratoconus in my right eye, and I might possibly have it in my left. While Lasik doesn't explicitly cause keratoconus, we also didn't know back in the 90's that some people might have corneas with hidden defects that might not take too well to a laser shaving off a couple of layers.
So if they can come up with a way to take stem cells and create whole new corneas to replace damaged ones, then I for one will be anxiously awaiting the day when it becomes available in the United States (about ten years from now most likely, given the FDA's restrictions). I'd like to have normal eyes again, and not worry about one day having to undergo a corneal transplant. So this is AWESOME that they can do that. More power to stem cell research!!!!

A bit offtopic, I use glasses right now (myopia, -7 diopters IIRC) and several people have asked me why I haven't had surgery yet.. I don't really think surgery would change my life all that much, do you think your benefits outweighted the (possible, in your case real) dangers?

BTW I do sports with sports glasses - think Kareem, it's annoying at night after I took off my glasses, but not much else.

Six good years of eyesight later, I started to develop an abnormality in my right now. Now, in my early thirties, I've been diagnosed with keratoconus in my right eye, and I might possibly have it in my left.

"I never should have had that trendy laser surgery. It was great at first but, you know, at the ten-year mark your eyes fall out."Damn, who knew that Ned Flanders was right! [snpp.com]

does that mean I'm producing stem cells right nowProducing them? I have no idea. Do you have them? Yes you do. However, stem cells like these are different than embryonic stem cells in that they are already have a predisposition of turning into cells of a certain type, where embryonic stem cells can be coerced into turning into any type.

Wearing glasses as a fashion statement isn't new at all. It occurred at least as early as the early Renaissance when glasses were considered a sign of wealth (because you could afford them) and education (because you presumably needed them to read).

After a manner of speaking, yes. The thing is, they aren't nearly the same as hES. They're sometimes termed human adult stem cells. This is a misnomer on several levels. (1) They're not unique to adults, or even children. They appear early in fetal development (or sooner?). (2) They're partially differentiated. Each can only become specific types of cells (3) There are many different types depending on what they may become. Those found in the bone marrow are very different from those found in muscle